Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Romanian Land Forces

Romanian Land Forces

This article has passed over two unsuccessfull A-Class reviews and I would like to know what else does it need to be finally promoted to A-class status. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior peer review here

Carom

A few comments and observations:

Many of the sections are very short, which detracts from the overall visual appeal of the article.

The article is, I think, a little undercited. There are places where factual claims are uncited (for example, the second paragraph under "manpower"), and this needs to be remedied.

The "current structure" section might be better as a table.

The "see also" section is probably best removed, and the links incorporated into the main body of the article.

In places, the images seem to clutter the article a little - you might be able to find a better layout for them.

You might consider Russian Ground Forces as a potential model, although I don't know what its' condition is relative to its' condition at the time it was featured.

Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06

I still have to say that this is not ready for A-class. The 'Beginnings' section needs much more content and context, and so does the Second World War section on the Eastern Front. There's masses of information about the Cold War orientation and tasking of the Army, particularly after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, from the US Country Study that is not included (apart from the small section that was). There is masses of order of battle information, provided by W.B. Wilson and I, plus links and other data, that has not been inserted. There has been no attempt to insert Cold War International History Project data into the article either. One cannot trace histories of formations through the Soviet period to today from this article. Also, of course, echo Carom's comments on lack of references and removal of a See Also section. (On the RGF, the lead has changed slightly and the equipment section also, but otherwise it's still a reasonably good FA model as it was when it was promoted.) Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]